Black Dog

"In return for Pyongyang's accord, the other nations agreed that North Korea had the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and said they would discuss providing it a light-water reactor in the future."-LA Times "The six-party agreement - coupled with a promise to discuss a suspended light-water nuclear energy project - came just a week after (Chief US negotiator Christopher) Hill declared that North Korea's insistence on the right to nuclear energy for peacetime purposes was "a nonstarter."-Christian Science Monitor "The deal is seen by some analysts as a clear victory for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic approach over administration forces favoring a more confrontational approach. ... The agreement comes after an extended period of softening rhetoric. Mr. Bush, in his State of the Union address in 2002, famously included North Korea in an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and Iran, and Ms. Rice in January, before she became secretary of state, identified North Korea as an "outpost of tyranny." No such comments, however, have emanated from US officials in Washington since then, with the US making pointed statements that it respected the North's sovereignty and had no intention of attacking the country."-Chrsitian Science Monitor You've no proof whatsoever that Libya suspension of its WMD program had anything at all to do withIraq or toughening U.S. rhetoric. More likely Qaddafi saw an opportunity to end the U.S. and European sanctions, which were harming Libya's economic development. All he had to do was give up his rather insignificant "weapons of mass destruction" programs. So he made a small concession and received huge rewards. Seems like Kim learned his lesson from Qaddafi after all.

Or this: Intelligent design is not a theory

Which would explain why more people still watch CNN over Fox. What it really said. The PIPA report exploded in whose faces when, extactly? When WMD were found? When the links between Saddam and 9--11 were shown? You're really in your own little world, dude.

Fair enough. But I think the point stands that these fellas are, at best, clowns and, at worst, dangerous.

Leaving aside any arguments for or against gun control, the popular notion that Hitler disarmed the German people is a myth.

Missing: $1 billion Officers Worry Iraqi Army Will Disintegrate After U.S. Draws Down

Hilarious. North Korea doggedly plows away on its nuclear course, forcing the U.S. to the bargaining table and manages to come away with security gurantees and massive energy and economic assistance. And somehow the right wingers see this as a repudiation of appeasement? Amazing. Fact is, the U.S. had no choice but to bargain: its war fighting capabilities are hamstrung by its involvement in Iraq. They could not risk a second front, especially at a time when public support for the war in Iraq is turning sour. If there's a message to be gleaned from the comparison between the differing treatment accorded Iraq and North Korea it is this: stay strong. The weak (like Saddam's Iraq) will be stomped, but those who show some backbone will be rewarded at the bargaining table. And I highly doubt we've heard the last of Pyonyang's nuclear ambitions.

Fox , like CNN , now reaches about 4 of every 5 television households in the U.S, so comparisons with broadcast news shows are valid. Both "Special Report with Brit Hume" and the "Fox Report" draw around 1 million viewers a night during prime time. Compare that with the numbers from the big three: NBC's "Nightly News" averages 8.4 million households, ABC's "World News Tonight" averages 7 million and CBS's "Evening News", "liberal bias" and all, reaches 6 million households. So next time someone talks at length about the rating juggernaut that is FOX News, keep these numbers in mind.

Like...who? That's bogus. Interclass competition occurs even in societies with rigidly defined and strictly adhered to class or caste systems.Common interests do not rule out competition, be it for economic superiority or social status. Strawman argument.

I think that pretty much describes your contributions here to date. As a response, it's fairly typical for you: no attempt to address any arguments, nothing. Just vaguely condescending dismissals designed to project an air of superiority when, in fact, all it does is betray your own intellectual bankruptcy. Keep it up!

Aw, shove it. I didn't bash "Chirstians" (this time): I was specifically bashing the white Taliban assclowns you linked to. Anyone who believes "the state's authority is subservient to the Creator's authority, and when in conflict, government must adjust its position to conform to God's natural law" is pushing for the same kind of society we see in Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. And really, spare me the redbaiting (based on an utterance soemone made in the 1930's and in spite of the simple fact that, in 1940, the ACLU formally barred Communists from leadership or staff positions, and later took the position that it didn't even want them as members). And, above all, spare us all any more NewsMax garabage.I know you work for them and all but come on.

Right, I'll just borrow your Mickey Mouse viewfinder. The Marxist paradigm of workers and bosses is also a definition of capitalism. The disparities between these groups is a byproduct of capitalism, one that is essential to its function. Put another way: someone has to own the factory, someone has to mop the floors. To argue that these individuals have the same access to wealth and influence is simply laughable. What's more, if these inequalities did not exist the system would not work. It's utterly bizarrre to me that people can casually throw around terms like "the poor", or the "middle class" and yet get completely in a twist when someone points out the existence of such as evidence of a class system.

And for some people, its never necessary to consider things like history, context or (here's a word you like to throw around a lot) facts. Some people aren't smart enough to recognize that important decisions (such as whether or not to go to war) should take these factors into consideration and not be predicated on paranoid delusions and pie-in-the-sky scenarios.

Hell, even I'll concede that calling New Orleans occupied and for the withdrawl of troops is a bit nutty. I normally expect such deranged exaggerations from the folks on the O'Reilly Factor or the pages of the Weekly Standard.

The U.S. Is a class-based society. Has been pretty much from Day One. Then again, so iS Canada. So is any country with a remotely capitalist system. Class division is a necessary corollary to capitalism. Well, its funny that you'd folow that up with Bill O'Reilly. Certainly, the Katrina disaster has brought the ugly side of social Darwinism in the U.S, to the forefront, whether it's Bill rambling on about "many, many, many of the poor in New Orleans are...drug-addicted...thugs" or the widespread sentiment that those who were unable to get out were unable to do so because of a dependance on government (and not because of, say, a lack of resources) and therefore, deserve what they got.

They shoud be in Iraq. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To be fair, most of the people involved are (according to the National (Com)Post) "disabled Vietnam veterans in their 60s", I'd say they've done their time. Now, why anyone would think a group of disabled Vietnam veterans in their 60s would be an more effective deterrent to drug smugglers and terrorists than, say, the DEA, is another question.

I can't say how accurate the initial numbers are, given we don't know if those 1996 dollars have been adjusted for growth. I'm gonna say no. I will point out that O'Reilly's comparison neglects to mention that the poverty rate declined every year Clinton was in office, from 15.1 percent when he took office in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000, whereas it's risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004. Link.

Give me a break. Given that drug smugglers whole raison d'etre is to not get caught, and given the level of sophistication of modern cross-border smuggling operations, why would anyone assume for a second that 60 senior citizens toting pistols would be any more successful than the cops?

Bwahahahahahahaha! Now why would you think a link from a Christian Dominionist web site would hold any water with anyone? If they are concerned, they should find outlets other than vigilantism.

Meaning...what?

I understand that it's conventional wisdom in the industry that people tune into CNN for news updates and headlines and Fox for commentary.

First of all, you're a moron. Actually, that's all I've got to say about that. No one said they were all white supremacists. But the Minutemen's core demographic is constituted of right-wing extremists, including many outright racists. But that's just the cherry on top of this. The fact is, having a band of unaccountable, armed "do-gooders" roaming around is a sure recipe for disaster.

Has the Bush administration learned the lesson from FEMA that putting political appointees in charge of important initiatives is a bad idea? Evidently not.

Try as I might, I just can't see having a bunch of armed white supremacists marching along the Canada/U.S. border as a good idea. See here (with photos), here, and here.

Basically, Neilsen measures viewership in two ways: ratings (which are presented as a single number and represent the average number of viewers watching a station or a show in a typical minute, based on Nielsen's household monitoring) and the "cume" (the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day). Unlike the average ratings number, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer. So CNN has a higher "cume" than Fox, while Fox has higher ratings than CNN.